The strict 4-month statutory limitation period for filing a GST appeal under Section 107 could not be condoned, as the provision created a special regime that excluded the general principles of condonation of delay under the Limitation Act.
Where inspection reports and material evidence establish non-functional business activity and assessee failed to avail opportunities for hearing, cancellation of registration under Rule 21 of the BGST Rules could not be faulted. Writ jurisdiction could not be invoked to bypass the statutory remedy of an appeal.
AO was wrong in disallowing the entire direct expenditure claimed towards sub-contractors for stevedoring and transport services and at the same time, assessee had not proved beyond doubt that the expenditure claimed was fully genuine. Considering all these inconsistencies, CIT(A) righlyl disallowed 20% of the expenditure claimed.
Non-service of notice and denial of hearing before adjudication under Section 73 violates Section 75(4) and the principles of natural justice, therefore, the demand order passed ex parte under Section 73 in such circumstances was unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
Lawyer’s office constituted a professional, not commercial, activity, and use of an air-conditioned basement for such purpose did not violate Section 252 of the NDMC Act when consistent with MDP 2001 and Building Byelaws, 1983.
Where the property was not actually let out, and was treated as self-occupied property, in case of vacant property, the annual value under section 23(1)(a) must be determined on the basis of the Municipal Rateable Value and not market rent.
Limitation under Rule 68B of the second schedule to the Income Tax Act did not apply to RDDB Act (Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993) proceedings as Rule 68B of the IT Act had no mandatory application to recoveries under the RDDB Act
Form 3CL was not a determinative document for claiming deduction, and non-production of the same did not amount to wilful non-disclosure or suppression of material facts under Explanation 1 to Section 147.
The amendment to Explanation 1(d) of Rule 43 of the CGST Rules, 2017, effected vide Notification No. 14/2022 – Central Tax dated 05.07.2022, was prospective in nature, therefore, any claim for ITC made in respect of periods antecedent to the notification could not be sustained.
Mens rea was not essential for penalty under Section 117, revocation of the courier license was unwarranted; penalties under both Section 117 of the Customs Act and Regulation 14 of the 2010 Regulations were validly imposed.
